Sections 2 (f) and 6 of the RTI Act:
Petitioner
filed an application u/s. 6 of the RTI Act before the Administrative
Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer (respondent no.1)
seeking information to the queries mentioned therein. The said
application was rejected by the PIO. An appeal against the said order
was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. Second Appeal against
the said order was also dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State
Information Commission vide order dated 20-11-2007. The petitioner
challenged the said order before the High Court. The Writ Petition had
been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the information
sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RT I Act. Thus,
the application was not maintainable. More so, the judicial officers are
protected by the Judicial Officers’ Protection Act, 1850 (hereinafter
called the “Act 1850”). Hence, this petition.
Mr. V. Kanagaraj
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that
right to information is a fundamental right of every citizen. The RT I
Act does not provide for any special protection to udges. The petitioner
has the right to know the reasons as to how Respondent no. 4 (the
Appellate Court) has decided his appeal in a particular manner.
Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable.
Rejection of the application by Respondent no. 1 and Appellate
Authorities rendered the petitioner remediless. Petitioner vide
application dated 15-11-2006 had asked as under what circumstances
Respondent no. 4 ignored the written arguments and additional written
arguments, as the ignorance of the same was tantamount to judicial
dishonesty.
It was noted that the petitioner has not challenged
the order passed by Respondent no. 4. Instead, he had filed the
application u/s. 6 of RT I Act to know why and for what reasons
Respondent no. 4 had come to a particular conclusion which was against
the petitioner. The nature of the questions posed in the application
were to the effect why and for what reason Respondent no. 4 omitted to
examine certain documents and why he came to such a conclusion.
The
definition of ‘information’ u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act shows that an
applicant u/s. 6 of the RT I Act can get any information which is
already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law.
Of course, under the RT I Act an applicant is entitled to get a copy of
the opinions, advices, circulars, orders etc., but he cannot ask for any
information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders etc.
have been passed especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions.
A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any
party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the
remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way
of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No
litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what
reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A
judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to
such a conclusion.
Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioner
submitted his application u/s. 6 of the RT I Act before the
Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer
seeking information in respect of the questions raised in his
application. However, the Public Information officer is not suppose to
have any material which is not before him; or any information he could
have obtained under the law. Under section 6 of RT I Act, an applicant
is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the
“public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The
answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been
with the public authority nor could he have had access to this
information and Respondent no. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as
to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. A
judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have
been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the
petitioner before public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A
judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the
same is not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the
public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be
exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to
malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend.
If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the
independence of the judiciary. A judge should be free to make
independent decisions.
The Supreme Court held that as the
petitioner has misused the provisions of the RT I Act, the High Court
had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
[Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors: SLP (civil) No. 34868 of 2009.]
Section 8 (1) (j)
Vide RT I dated 17-05-2012 the appellant had sought information on 7 points.
PIO vide letter dated 12-06-2012 denied information stating that the same is exempt u/s. 8 (1) (e) (g) and (j) of the RT I Act.
First
Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 06- 08-2012 provided Place
of birth as per service records sought at query no. 4 and other details
as sought at query no 5 and 6.
Remaining information was denied stating that the same is personal information and exempted u/s. 8 (1) (j) of the RT I Act.
Aggrieved
with the decision of FAA, the appellant filed second appeal to Central
Information Commission on 21-08-2012 citing that Shri Ajit Kumar has
submitted fake caste certificate for seeking appointment.
CIC
vide order dated 27-12-2012 dismissed the appeal stating that personal
Information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest and
appellant has not established any such interest.
The appellant
filed Writ Petition No. W P 080 of 2013 in the High Court of Calcutta
(Circuit Bench at Port Blair). The Honorable High Court remitted the
matter to CIC with directions to decide the appeal afresh.
To
decide the matter under the application, the Chief Information
Commissioner constituted a 3 member bench of following Commissioners A)
Shri Rajiv Mathur B) Shri Basant Seth C ) Smt Manjula Prasher.
The
appellant submitted that Shri Ajit Kumar (third party) has obtained
appointment under reserve category by submitting false caste
certificate. On being asked by the Commission as to the evidence he has
to prove the same, he replied that he has information from official
sources.
Shri Ajit Kumar, the third party, submitted that he is
recruited under general category and had not submitted any caste
certificate to his employer. He also submitted that the appellant had
been harassing him and none of his personal information should not be
provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that Shri Ajit Kumar is
appointed under general category and no caste certificate has been
submitted by him. A notice was sent to Shri R. Ajit Kumar under
provisions of section 11(1) of RT I Act. In his response he objected to
furnishing any personal information related to him and also stated that
there is threat to him. PIO also stated that the appellant is habitual
information seeker and filed RTIs against many employees and
blackmailing them.
Ms. Tamali Biswas, advocate on behalf of
public authority, stated that the fact of employment of Shri R. Ajit
Kumar under unreserved category and non-availability of caste
certificate was brought to the notice of Hon’ble High Court also.
The appellant has submitted that decision may be taken on the basis of documents/records and justice be delivered in true spirit as per orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta (Circuit Bench At Port Blair).
Shri R. Ajit Kumar submitted that his appointment was under Unreserved Category and the appellant is seeking information to harass him .The appellant has a criminal background and is involved in a forgery case and the issue is sub judice. He has requested that his personal information should not be provided to the appellant.
The public authority has submitted that the appellant is a retired employee of their yard and was involved in two criminal cases for forgery. He is misusing the RTI Act against NSRY and its employees. Shri Ajit Kumar was appointed under Unreserved Category and copy of recruitment letter is enclosed with the submissions. A notice was sent to third party by them who responded stating that it is an unwarranted invasion of privacy and perpetuation of biased campaign of maligning his professional image as well as disturbing the personal peace and also seems to be an act of personal vendetta.
DECISION
• “The Commission observes that Shri R. Ajit Kumar has been appointed under unreserved category, hence the plea of getting employment by submitting forged caste certificate does not have any merit and the contention that disclosure sought is in public interest fails”.
• “In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),‘Public Interest’ is defined as: “ a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement but that in which a class of community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
• “The appellant has made mere conjectures and surmises and not able to give any cogent and sound evidence to prove the element of ‘Public Interest.’
• Commission quoted the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13-12-2012 in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr:
23. The expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act.
The expression ‘public interest’ must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ‘public purpose’, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)].
24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision.
Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality. The information may come to knowledge of the authority as a result of disclosure by others who give that information in confidence and with complete faith, integrity and fidelity. Secrecy of such information shall be maintained, thus, bringing it within the ambit of fiduciary capacity. Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relation- ship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India.”
• The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgement dated 05-02-2014 (Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Others ) have observed:
“… This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “Sunshine Act”. A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law…”
• Keeping in view above, the Commission held that the information sought by the appellant is personal information of Shri R Ajit Kumar and protected from disclosure U/S 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act as no larger public interest is established.
[Ch. Rama Krishna Rao vs. Naval Ship Yard, Port Blair, (Third Party: Shri R. Ajit Kumar) Decided by the full bench on 05-05-2014. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002430/RM.]
